The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

History of the 9/11 Forum

Discuss any issues related to 9/11 that don't fall into the other categories.

History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Major_Tom » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:38 pm

I found these comments from another thread to be worth a thread of their own:


ozeco41 wrote:
Chainsaw wrote:This war has it's root causes in socioeconomic, and Sociopolitical conflicts dating back 50 years before 9/11/2001 with the founding of the country of Saudi Arabia, and our involvement in the Persian gulf.
It is so much more complex than any one singular event if it were not for the collapse of the USSR, 9/11/2001 would not have occurred.

Agreed. I won't even dispute the 50 years even tho the "white supremacy" and "colonisation" issues go back further. The main factors relevant to the situation are within the 50 years you identify.

My main concern for this forum however is current attempts to force discussion into lower levels than JREF/ISF. As demonstrated currently by Major_Tom and the recent several months campaign by stundie to turn this forum into "JREF Super Lite"

I respect the reason why the founders of this forum established it:
"Our intent is to bring together sincere researchers, irrespective of creed, for constructive dialog and collaboration on 9/11 issues. By "sincere researchers" we mean individuals interested in advancing knowledge and our collective understanding of the events of 9/11. No credentials are required."
They were people of integrity and set up this forum to maintain standards of objectivity, fairness and integrity. Posting ridicule of other members and structuring false arguments in support of such ridicule is a long way from what I think was the original objective.

It should be one of the last bastions of reasoned objective discussion. I find it sad that it is being besieged by those whose primary objectives are false arguments as the basis for pouring ridicule on other members. No better and probably worse than the ongoing nonsense from the "JREF Claque" and the recent even more extreme campaign by ProBonoShill.








Chainsaw wrote:Agreed, one hundred percent, it is a shame that such has became of this forum it was once a bastion of hope for reasoned discussion.
Perhaps there can be no reason discussion now though because few people are left who are interested in it.



I have a few questions:


Can either of you name the 'original founders'?

Can either of you tell me about the early activities of this forum from 2008 to, say, 2011? What was going on in the forum during that period?



I really do appreciate that this forum was referred to as a 'bastion of hope for reasoned discussion'. Can you tell me why and what was being discussed?



I'd like to use this thread to go into some of the history behind the creation of the forum. I was there. I communicated with Greg Urich before this forum began and there are some pretty funny stories about the early forum and how the early work was received outside the forum.


So, could either of you elaborate on your comments and give responses to the questions?

Please voice your concerns.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

 

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Major_Tom » Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:54 pm

For one who wants a short tour of the early forum, reading "An open letter to Richard Gage and AE9/11 Truth" by Greg Urich is a good place to start. But it seems the letter no longer exists unless somebody can find a copy of it.


Another small sample is in the thread "Debate, what debate?" linked here.

Note how Dr G writes about the highly polarized situation created by sites like JREF and AE911T. Also note his disappointment with academia and the NIST. Ironically, note his comment on what Bazant thought about academic response.

The common feeling among the early posters is that JREF represented 'anti-thought' and AE911T was no better. And note how people openly questioned the NIST.

It was this twin repulsion which served as the motivating force behind creating this forum.


Some early participants felt they were being lied to and censored by both the 'truther' side and the 'debunker' side. In fact, some of us knew we were.


Greg Urich was participating in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum before this forum was created. A guy called "Max Photon" got kicked out of the forum. I was kicked out of that forum for pointing out contradictions and asking too many difficult questions. I was creating quite a scene there and had the opportunity analyze the papers by Steven Jones and question him directly about his choice of arguments and photographic evidence. Others were watching with interest and it must have been too embarrassing and one day my password stopped working. I was kicked out with no warning and shortly after that Greg Urich quit.

I was able to verify directly that open debate is not welcome there and they had no intention of fixing their mistakes and making a public announcement about errors and corrections like I was insisting they do. Others were also able to verify that, too.


But that did not mean that the same people were not equally repulsed by JREF (actually, JREF was worse). Or by the NIST. Or by academic response.



The early threads set the tone and the "renaissance" portion was from 2009 to 2011. The renaissance portion was the most interesting part.


From that time onward, using the research gathered during the peak productive periods of this forum, it was easy to verify in a much more direct way that the twin repulsion that some of us felt instinctively was based on fact. Some of us were right to be highly suspicious of what we were seeing from both 'truthers' and 'debunkers', from the NIST and from academia.

The repulsion was a healthy response, and looking back I am satisfied to observe that in my own case my repulsion never diminished over time.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Major_Tom » Fri Nov 04, 2016 6:20 pm

This is a post taken from the 'Debate? What debate?' thread linked earlier:


OneWhiteEye wrote:
Dr. G wrote:My original thread was something of a diatribe against JREFers for their inability to truly debate “truthers”. However, I should add that I have seen the same level of vitriol and bigotry on many other 9/11 “research” websites and blogs, with the same pattern of behavior coming from both sides of the debate.


In many ways I see the two sides of this debate as two sides of the same coin. Sides are chosen largely on the basis of faith consistent with personal ideology, not evidence, rational inquiry or sound reasoning principles. There are some dissimilarities, but all the same character types are present on both sides. The vast majority are of the "what he said" variety even if they don't understand what was being said - it rings true to them, based on their personal faith. One psychological distinction is that debunkers of all persuasions seem to be the playground bullies that steal lunch money and truthers seem to be the ones that let them.



This was posted in January, 2009.


So, time has passed and we can sit back and look at what seems to be pretty much the final form of this 'debate'. And the OWE and Dr G comments are still as true now as when they were originally made.

The reference to 'bullies' is quite astute. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to ask many challenging questions to Steven Jones directly in front of other observers, including Greg Urich, Richard Gage, Graham McQueen, Greg Jenkins, and Gordon Ross among others.

I was eventually kicked out of the forum but not because the listed people were acting hostile toward me. They were actually quite polite considering the situation. Gordon Ross was in no way mean to me and expressed interest in my analysis. He even used some of it on his website. Graham McQueen was very polite and recommended to a person he had met who had a huge quantity of images to contact me and send his collection to me. Greg Jenkins didn't seem to have any issues with me and gave feedback on my analysis of photos.

I was kicked out with no warning by a person with the user name 'victronix' or something like that who was the moderator and, I was told but couldn't verify, is the wife of Jim Hoffman. I was kicked out most probably because the exchanges were too threatening to the core memes being circulated by the group but not because the people watching the exchanges were pushing for my departure. It is a private forum and one needs a working password to enter so when one is kicked out with no warning all ones research posted is effectively stolen.

I noticed that Richard Gage, responding to my analysis, recommended that the group drop the claim of 'angle-cut columns'. I thought that was a good idea and told them to announce that publicly. They clearly have the responsibility make a public statement if and when they retract a claim like that. But there was no statement issued. And the images suggesting 'angle-cut columns' remain within the Journal of 9/11 Studies.


I experienced censorship there but I never experienced blatant bullying until my experience at JREF. The 'debunking' websites and JREF seem to encourage and participate in harassment in a way that it is accepted as normal. Those places do not like research which looks at the 9/11 attacks deeply. And I am not the only one who has noticed this. As the case of Dr G shows, it doesn't matter who is doing the research. If it deviates from the memeplex of which 'gravysites' serves as an excellent working template, it will be harassed constantly.


It was within this environment that the 9/11 Forum came into being as Dr G expresses so well in his first post in the 'Debate, what debate?' thread. The first contributors clearly thought that the events of 9/11/01 deserved a deeper look for whatever reason and that the groups and institutes that claimed to being doing just that were not doing what they claimed to be doing. If they did not feel that way the forum wouldn't exist. Likewise, if they felt there was some other environment which encouraged independent evidence-based research into the 9/11 attacks they most probably would have used the environment already established.

This place exists because there wasn't any other environment.

Other groups and institutions were not only avoiding open evidence-based research of this subject, they were acting as impediments for those who wanted to examine the events deeper.
Major_Tom
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 5:04 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:01 am

Greg's letter,https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/tma8j/an_open_letter_to_richard_gage_and_ae911truth/

Yes I read it years ago and understand why the forum was established.

The point is we have taken evidence based research as far as it can go.

In fact it is trying to expand evidence based research that Stundie is objecting too, because he is not capable of the complexities involved.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby SanderO » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:23 pm

The Ulrich letter doesn't open when I click the link. Can you paste the letter or fix the link, Thanks.

Evidenced based research can only go so far with respect to the collapse of the towers. I believe it is limited by the data / evidence from the real world event. There is unfortunately not that much to work with. Instead we see all manner of models and assumptions applied to assorted calculations. This sort of thing will tend to miss the complexity and chaos / randomness even excluding other forces in play that likely was present. All the models and discussion about what was going on at col 79 floor 13 is a perfect example of how absurd this is.

We can see evidence of things like Euler buckling / forces in the behavior of the twin tower facades or the remaining core columns. But their toppling/buckling/collapse was not the cause of the main collapse, but an result or artifact of it. It's odd that this seemed to have largely gone unnoticed. Truth guys saw the facade flying off explosively... or the core turning to dust! This is simply very poor observation. But when you start with poor observation you can't possibly understand what you observed.

And note that virtually ALL the internet discussions and the papers and videos that sought to explain the event were 99.5% based on pics and vids, a limited information about the structures and the actual construction and some data supplied by ATC or whichever agency furnished data about the plane's performances that morning.

The Challenger disaster was not dissimilar in some respects. But there was more data and better engineering analysis and in the end some critical thinking explained the cause which came down to the failure of one o ring which failed to seal because of an out of spec temperature parameter.

There doesn't seem to be ONE straw in the WTC collapses, nor two.. but maybe scores or hundreds or more and therein comes the complexity and the fool's errand or trying to prove what caused the collapse beyond generalized statements such as "heat" and/or mech damage / and or design features.

NIST seemed to be all about trying to turn their effort into another Challenger investigation... pointing to a single straw or smoking gun. And that was (to me) a bone headed approach... and left them understandably vulnerable to criticism.

To me the greatest irony of all of this was the absence of (or limited) serious and detailed discussion about the engineering of the structures and the design of the connections and the key elements of those buildings. 7WTC was not a typical steel frame high rise by a long shot... and certainly neither were the twin towers.

I think people wanted to know if all the steel high rises around the country and the planet were subject to such rapid total collapse essentially from fires. Was this even adequately answered?

When I began reading this forum there appeared to be a more rigorous attempt to examine the event, the visual record and the physics. Certainly this was not a characteristic of JREF or ISF... nor AE911T.

Maybe
SanderO
 
Posts: 1969
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:28 pm

In the early days of Jref, ISF there was some debate, even some first responders and some eye witnesses, commenting.
It was the constant usage of the stills arguments, every time someone from Loose Change lost an argument that set the pattern of disrespect on Jref.
Dylan Avery is much to blame for that it was his favorite way to keep important conversations pigeon holed, and promote his fantasy film.
To understand the Aditude on Jref you have to understand the Loose Change years, where every day another lie appeared, by another young know nothing searching to Ride Dylan Avery's coat tails to fame.

The file is a PDF file, I can copy and paste it here.
If it is OK with OWE.
I know more than I have ever told, but who cares, certainly not Stundie he wouldn't know Science if it bit him on the rear end!
I am thinking about leaving the discussion totally, as Frank has done what is the point anymore I know what I wanted to know.
I know where and how science and logic went wrong, telling people how and why accomplishes nothing.
Why care anymore?
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:40 pm

Greg's letter.

An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth
Dear Mr. Gage and members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,
I am a member of AE911Truth (pending verification) and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. I have
also contributed articles to the Journal of 9/11 Studies. While I appreciate the work you and others
are doing to examine the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I am concerned that many arguments
put forth are incorrect. Please don’t mistake me for a NIST apologist or an official cover-up story
believer. The truth movement needs to be very sure of its claims to avoid being dismissed as ignorant
fools, nut-jobs or politically motivated manipulators. Justice is clearly dependent on the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. Because of the large number of fallacious claims purveyed by
various groups within the movement, my approach has been and will continue to be to examine
claims on both sides of the argument and take them at their own merit. I hope others will embrace
this approach so that the truth movement can live up to its basic values and achieve its well meaning
goals.
There are clearly problems with the official story and these are well covered by truth movement.
However, after spending many 100s of hours examining and discussing evidence, analyses and claims
on both sides of the argument, I have found that a large portion of the truth movement’s claims are
unsubstantiated or incorrect. These need to be corrected. With this in mind, I have looked at the
AE911Truth claims given below and I offer criticism where I feel it can be helpful.
From AE911Truth with my comments interspersed:
”As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics
of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
The validity of this claim rests on the definition of “extremely rapid”. NIST provides
evidence of growing instability 10 min prior to collapse including smoke expulsions
from partial floor collapses and bowing of the exterior wall on the south side of WTC1.
2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by
over 100 first responders
Surely, there were explosive sounds and flashes of light as there are too many
witnesses to deny this. Nonetheless, the only videos of the collapses with sound do
not have any explosive sounds. In the following video, one can hear people talking and
the sound of the collapse. In videos of actual demolitions the explosive charges are at
least ten times louder than collapse sounds. Compare:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... _below.mpg
to these actual demolitions:
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:42 pm

Second page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMkJmnyDuQ
This evidence directly contradicts the controlled demolition theory, at least by conventional
means. Nonetheless, the witness testimonies should be taken seriously. It is possible that
people heard or saw something else, for example, reflections of lights from emergency
vehicles or cars exploding.
3. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the
videos
This argument would only favor controlled demolition if the pressures inside the
building in a gravitational collapse are not sufficient or cannot propagate fast enough
to cause the observed phenomena. To my knowledge, this has not been
demonstrated.
4. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets &
1000 people – mostly to dust
This claim is not correct and in no way favors controlled demolition over gravitational
collapse. Engineers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911), including Greg
Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and Gregory Urich, have demonstrated that the upper bound
for concrete pulverized to dust was 15%. We have also calculated that the amount of
dust attributable to easily crushed materials like gypsum and SFRM (thermal
insulation) was equivalent to 5 lbs per square foot over an area of 200 acres. We have
also calculated that no extra energy source would be needed to create this amount of
dust. The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these
pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
Is the cloud really pyroclastic, or is it just dust? Engineers at STJ911 have calculated
that 15% of the concrete together with fireproofing and gypsum would result in
massive volumes amounting to 10 lbs of dust per square foot over an area of 200
acres. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the air being expelled from the
collapsing building was approaching velocities of 200 m/s. This is the primary engine
driving the expanding dust clouds. The dust cloud was given even more energy from
debris falling outside the perimeter.
6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
This is only one interpretation of the visual records of the collapses. Another
interpretation is that the pressures due to impacts were blowing out the windows. The
characterization as “demolition waves” has no support in the evidence or scientific
analyses to date.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:50 pm

7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed —
the columns gave no resistance
This is simply incorrect. Neither collapse was symmetrical. In WTC2, most debris falling
outside the footprint went east and south. In WTC1, most debris falling outside the
footprint went north and west. Engineers at STJ911 have calculated that the structure
provided resistance to the extent that 40-60% of the original PE was dissipated prior to
debris impact at the foundation.
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
This claim in no way favors CD over gravitational collapse. The size of the debris field is
not surprising considering that the exteriors peeled outward (see also #10). The debris
was not equally distributed.
9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
The characterization of blast waves is not supported. Since most of the broken
windows were broken lower down on the surrounding buildings, the most likely cause
was winds caused by the expulsion of air from the building as described in #5. The
winds described above would certainly be capable of blowing in windows.
10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
Close inspection of some of the videos reveal that most exterior columns fell still
connected as the exterior peeled outward. Since the exterior was 1400 ft. high it is not
surprising that they reached 500 ft. away. In fact, there exist photos of the nearly
intact exterior stretching all the way from WTC1 to the World Financial Center.
11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating
the steel core structure.
It has not been demonstrated that this is uncharacteristic of a gravitational collapse
that initiates high up in a 110 floor, high rise, tube/core structure building. Since the
world has never seen such a collapse prior to or after 9/11, there are no empirical
results to compare to. Often, the collapses are compared to gravitation collapses due
to earthquakes resulting in pan-caking or toppling. These comparisons are not relevant
to the Twin Towers because the initiation of the collapses is low in the building due to
lateral forces. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that there was plenty of
potential energy to enable buckling of all columns at every floor. In reality, the core
columns broke mostly at the welded connections every 36 ft, which takes even less
energy.
12. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all
of that molten metal?)
Does any evidence for “tons of molten metal” exist? What metals comprise this
molten metal? This author is only aware of witness statements regarding molten
metal and only small pieces of previously molten metal. Can molten metal observed in
the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before? The
fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate and any
thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 1:53 pm

was not observed. If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a
reasonable issue to investigate. Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be
considered indicative of a thermate attack.
13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten
metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers
and NIST alike. However, there may be alternative explanations other than a
preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and inter-granular melting on structural steel samples
I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers
and NIST alike. However, there may be alternative explanations other than a
preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.
15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of
nearby buildings”
This does not favor the CD hypothesis over the gravitational collapse hypothesis. See
#4.
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations.
See #1 above.
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of
momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged
by the fires).
Has any rigorous analysis of the “path of least resistance” been done? An application of the
principle of least action would probably be more appropriate. Mechanical dynamics are
governed by inertia, force, momentum and material properties. This author has seen no
dynamic analyses showing that the top parts of the towers should have fallen off. Unless this
argument is supported by careful analysis it is only conjecture.
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.
It is well proven that temperatures in building fires can soften steel. This is why buildings
have thermal insulation applied to the steel structural components.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 2:01 pm

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
These buildings were not structurally damaged to begin with and had different structural
designs than the Twin Towers. It would be meaningful to examine whether or not the
buildings, which survived serious fires, had concrete cores or not. Does any evidence exist
that buildings with similar structural design, damaged in the manner of the world trade
center, should not collapse due to fires?
My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s
impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis. Most important, there are no tell-tale sharp cracking
sounds in the sound video given above and there is no comparison between the sounds in that video
and the sounds in videos actual demolitions. This means we can rule out demolition using
conventional means.
I hope that your commitment to the truth is such that you take my criticisms seriously. If the truth
movement is going to be successful, we will need to distance ourselves from fallacious claims and
avoid conjecture. I would welcome constructive discussion of these issues in any forum. I am
regularly available on the STJ911 and JREF forums, and you have my e-mail address.
Sincerely,
Gregory Urich
P.S. Some wordings have been changed for clarity and small errors have been corrected in this
published version.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby ozeco41 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:27 pm

SanderO wrote:The Ulrich letter doesn't open when I click the link. Can you paste the letter or fix the link, Thanks.

The link chainsaw gave takes you to a minimal page:
An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth - Gregory Urich. No matter where you stand on the 911 Truth issue, remember to maintain objectivity.
u/tldrumz4y
cool-places.0catch
1 Comment


You need to click the SECOND link "cool-places.0catch"

Which takes you to the actual link to the *.pdf which is THIS:
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/O ... rdGage.pdf

I nearly missed it myself. :wink:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:35 pm

This pad, does not allow the copying of PDF codes, it is a security feature, in the main program.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby ozeco41 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:09 pm

Chainsaw wrote:Greg's letter,https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/tma8j/an_open_letter_to_richard_gage_and_ae911truth/

Yes I read it years ago and understand why the forum was established.

Thanks for the link(s) Chainsaw. The paper reflects where Greg Urich was at the leading edge of research at that time. Much of it is now way off the pace of current - today's - leading edge understandings. But he - and some of his colleagues here - were out in front of the masses back in the day.

Chainsaw wrote:The point is we have taken evidence based research as far as it can go.
Maybe. The concept of "evidence based research" can be misleading or misunderstood. And it is not the limiting factor in most topics. The limits I see are in reasoning skills NOT availability of the technical research data. Many of the "left brained" participants esp engineers cannot think beyond numbers and FEA's. A severe handicap to progress.

Fundamentally there are two goals of debate for the WTC 9/11 collapses. They are:
1) Explain the collapse mechanisms; OR
2) "Prove/disprove CD".

And there is proof here and on JREF/ISF that we have NOT taken that first objective - explain the mechanisms - "...as far as IT can go..". We have taken it as "...as far as WE can go.." where WE is the dominating claque of members who are probably at the limits of their own "comfort zone". The last year or so has seen strong pressures to "turn back the clock" on technical understanding AND take the easy way for discussion - feeding the resident trolls. A waste of effort by my criteria.

There has not been much serious exploration on JREF since the "Limits of Bazant" thread where Major_Tom, femr2 and I collaborated with the OP - pgimeno. That was 2010. Whilst in much the same time frame M_T's "OOS Model" thread got the full on hatred of alleged truthers treatment. And still recycles about every 12>>18 months. Ludicrous arguments from several which I have parodied several times.

More recently on JREF/ISF I went a quantum leap further than any other member has attempted with the "Explanation of Initiation for Jango" thread. Many members commended it but did not enter discussion. BUT two of the blocks on progress - Newton's Bit tried to re-introduce complication - obviously offended that I would dare to explain something to non-engineer laypersons. He then resorted to lying and PA. Pgimeno simply resorted to going round in circles within his own incredulity. Then in my latest attempt to explain one of the "Limits of Bazant" (Crush down/crush up does not apply to WTC Twins 9/11 collapses) tfk also resorted to debating trickery, lying and PA.

There are many members who are at their personal limits and not prepared to walk through explanations which take them out of their personal comfort zones. T Szamboti is another from the "truther side" but his tactics of denial are identical to tfk's. (think about that one. :wink: )

Chainsaw wrote:In fact it is trying to expand evidence based research that Stundie is objecting too, because he is not capable of the complexities involved.

Probably so to an extent. The main problem I have with Stundie's recent posts here - and he has admitted it on at least one occasion - is that he condemns "pantomime debunking" but does so by resorting to "pantomime skepticing" or "pantomime truthing".

Reminds me of the primary/grade school kids on my bus who sometimes get to fisticuffs.
Q. "Billy - did you hit Michael"?
A. "He hit me first!"

"He did it first" or "he did it too" is a confession NOT a defence.
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: History of the 9/11 Forum

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 4:34 pm

To Accuse someone of pantomime debunking you first have to understand the validity of the subject being discussed, truly Stundie does not.
That turns his accusations in to merely false and inaccurate claims.
That is his logical flaw, Jones proposed in his paper that because Aluminum does not radiate black body radiation at 1000C do to rapid cooling in air, because of aluminums high thermal conductivity, that It could not have been the material or portions of the material dripping from the towers.
He proposed that no material could conceivably mix with Aluminum to change the thermal conductivity because it would float off in the oxide as it broke as the aluminum flowed as a molten Liquid.
What I discovered was because of aluminums reaction to nitrates in plastic that claim is false not only can AIN mix into aluminum and change the thermal conductivity, but it will produce heat itself when the Aluminum oxide coating fractures as the molten aluminum flows, and the freshly exposed AIN Oxidized.
I wouldn't expect Stundie to actually be interested in real honest science, he is stuck in a world of his own where all that matters is his belief systems.
He is not competent enough to put the idea to a test, experiment, or to understand the reactions.
He just wants the dumbed down YouTube version of everything.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Next



Return to Other Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred